$15 minimum wage would destroy 1.4 Million jobs

[Blues Man]

It won't because the people with the talent are already making more than minimum wage.

All that will happen is a business will pay twice as much for the same unskilled labor

Now You are being overly two dimensional. A lower minimum wage may simply not be cost effective for some to bother working.

People who can't be bothered to work are not the type of people that have job skills

They could be going to school or learning new skills.

Then they wouldn't be applying for minimum wage jobs.,

Really who goes to school so they can get a minimum wage job?

No one that's who.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

to the extent of its purchasing power and enforcement, the federal minimum wage rate reduces incidences and extents of poverty in our nation.

To the extent that it reduces employment and raises prices, the federal minimum wage rate increases incidences and extents of poverty in our nation.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of economics and the multiplier effect. Higher paid labor simply creates more in demand and generates more in tax revenue.

Liar.

Typical right winger typing on the Internet. You need a valid argument for rebuttal.

generates more in tax revenue.

Prove it, liar.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The anti-competitive aspect of minimum wage laws is conveniently ignored. They prevent poor people from competing for jobs with what is often the only advantage they possess - the willingness and ability to work for less. This is by design.

And they FINALLY state the truth.

They want the poor to compete for LOWER WAGES.

And tell me, speaking for all those opposed to the minimum wage...

Just How Low Will You GO?

$5
$2
How little can you get away with paying a starving person so they can eat?
How about lunch and a place to stay?
That's what they did to the coal miners?
That really is what you want isn't it?
Slave Labor without to problems of being a Slave Owner.

Tell us where those jobs are fuck face?

I will work for $2 bucks an hour if the job is interesting enough, I will undercut the competition and paid my resume

My goodness you are just the stupid one aren't you.
Those jobs don't LEGALLY exist today in this country.
But, if they did, you'd never get $2 an hour.
First, you're not worth $2.
Second, somebody else will work cheaper.
Which was the point of the post moron.
View attachment 457682

You stupid fuck states like alabama have no minimum wage law

 

[Wyatt earp]

The anti-competitive aspect of minimum wage laws is conveniently ignored. They prevent poor people from competing for jobs with what is often the only advantage they possess - the willingness and ability to work for less. This is by design.

And they FINALLY state the truth.

They want the poor to compete for LOWER WAGES.

And tell me, speaking for all those opposed to the minimum wage...

Just How Low Will You GO?

$5
$2
How little can you get away with paying a starving person so they can eat?
How about lunch and a place to stay?
That's what they did to the coal miners?
That really is what you want isn't it?
Slave Labor without to problems of being a Slave Owner.

You twisted fuck. You want them to go without job instead? If they can't make as much as you think is "minimal" - fuck 'em. They can't work.


It's none of your FUCKING business how much someone else make. Piss off.

And another dumbass who apparently can't read 8th grade English.
That's right, moron, I do keep it simple for the idiots but, obviously in your case. Maybe we should start here for you?

View attachment 457683

The point for you and the rest of the idiots is that given the choice the EMPLOYERS will not pay at all.

.

I really can't imagine why someone would work for nothing, but if they do - why is it any of your business?

Some interns do

 

[danielpalos]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

Snapperhead!!

Negative $9 billion is net.

That means there is $53 billion negative out there that you're ignoring.

 

[danielpalos]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

That may happen but only in the short term since higher paid labor craetes more in demand generates more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

since higher paid labor craetes more in demand

The higher prices and lower employment already erased the higher demand you claim.

Not at all.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64/20=3.2

Employers would need to disemploy at a more than 3 to 1 ratio of employees working at the lower wage rate while those who remained would be increasing economic activity at the higher wage rate.

 

[danielpalos]

That is why the minimum wage should have been keeping up with productivity;

Unskilled workers, like you, didn't become more productive.
That's why they and you were still making the minimum wage.

You are still thinking in two dimensions or less. Going overseas for cheaper labor has some market based arbitrage effect. Congress could have simply taxed firms leaving for cheaper wages at the federal minimum wage rate. A simple solution.

 

[danielpalos]

And again you try to pretend that a war time economy is the same as a peacetime economy. You didn't go to find out what Lincoln did to the Constitution during the Civil War, did you?

Abolish your worthless, fake news, and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror since you admit we have a peacetime economy not a real times of war economy. Be brave and go the equivalent to maskless for those non-pandemic issues.

 

[danielpalos]

And once again what a CEO gets paid is completely irrelevant and has no impact on what people get paid.

The difference between value and capital valuation?

 

[danielpalos]

Most people do not work for companies with high paid CEOs so it really doesn''t matter what they get paid.

What Jeff Bezos makes has never had any effect on my income

Not true at all. Gravity Payments' CEO proved the concept and the starting wage there is around thirty-five dollars an hour.

And how did that affect your income?

Oh yeah it didn't.

I don't work at any of these firms:

From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%).

And most people don't work for giant corporations with high paid CEOs.

So stop whining about it

Not the point; the people who do work at those firms haven't seen similar gains to their income or stock options.

how do you know they even own stock in the company they work for?>

That is where they made most of their gains. Employees should be compensated with stock and options as well.

 

[danielpalos]

Then they wouldn't be applying for minimum wage jobs.,

Really who goes to school so they can get a minimum wage job?

No one that's who.

Because they know the difference and may even value it. A higher wage could make more economic sense for some.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

That may happen but only in the short term since higher paid labor craetes more in demand generates more in tax revenue in every long run equilibrium.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

since higher paid labor craetes more in demand

The higher prices and lower employment already erased the higher demand you claim.

Not at all.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64/20=3.2

Employers would need to disemploy at a more than 3 to 1 ratio of employees working at the lower wage rate while those who remained would be increasing economic activity at the higher wage rate.

Why are you lying?

Page 9

The Effects on Employment and Family Income of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage (cbo.gov)

 

[danielpalos]

generates more in tax revenue.

Prove it, liar.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

Labor would be creating demand and generating tax revenue based on the higher amount. Even if you subtract the 20 billion lost there would still remain 44 billion in additional economic activity, and the multiplier from those individuals who tend to spend most of their income on more immediate needs. Local small businesses would have the location advantage.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And you can't figure out why?

Technology improved by leaps and bounds in that time frame.

We replaced highly skilled labor with automated processes that a low skilled worker can oversee.

That is why the minimum wage should have been keeping up with productivity; for comparison and contrast, CEOs don't produce any more than they did before.

Yes they do they invested in the technology to make their workers more productive

 

[danielpalos]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

Snapperhead!!

Negative $9 billion is net.

That means there is $53 billion negative out there that you're ignoring.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20-9=35 billion dollars in additional economic activity that is not there now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

generates more in tax revenue.

Prove it, liar.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

Labor would be creating demand and generating tax revenue based on the higher amount. Even if you subtract the 20 billion lost there would still remain 44 billion in additional economic activity, and the multiplier from those individuals who tend to spend most of their income on more immediate needs. Local small businesses would have the location advantage.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Total real family income would decrease by $9 billion...moron.

Not sure how they reached that conclusion when they reached this conclusion in that same study.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

And, they did not suggest any tax breaks that could mitigate that cost.

And, with better coverage for unemployment compensation, there would still be a multiplier of 2 for those who are unemployed.

64-20=44 billion in additional economic activity. Even if we subtract 9 billion in total family income that still leaves a gain of 35 billion in economic activity.

Snapperhead!!

Negative $9 billion is net.

That means there is $53 billion negative out there that you're ignoring.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

64-20-9=35 billion dollars in additional economic activity that is not there now.

Idiot.

 

[hadit]

And again you try to pretend that a war time economy is the same as a peacetime economy. You didn't go to find out what Lincoln did to the Constitution during the Civil War, did you?

Abolish your worthless, fake news, and alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror since you admit we have a peacetime economy not a real times of war economy. Be brave and go the equivalent to maskless for those non-pandemic issues.

What does that have to do with you trying to equate a war time economy with a peacetime economy? You know you won't get the same results, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Politicians can claim all kinds of wars on all kinds of stuff, but what they're really doing is trying to generate support for spending a lot of money. You know, like the war on poverty was never a real war at all, it was just a marketing slogan to generate support to allow the federal government to spend a lot of money on welfare programs.

 

[hadit]

generates more in tax revenue.

Prove it, liar.

Real earnings for workers while they remained employed would increase by $64 billion,

Real earnings for workers while they were jobless would decrease by $20 billion,

Labor would be creating demand and generating tax revenue based on the higher amount. Even if you subtract the 20 billion lost there would still remain 44 billion in additional economic activity, and the multiplier from those individuals who tend to spend most of their income on more immediate needs. Local small businesses would have the location advantage.

Do you honestly think the government is going to get much tax revenue out of MW jobs, no matter how high it's set? They are MW jobs, which means no one in Washington is going to allow them to be taxed.